The A.P. Handicrats Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director v. Ch. Srinivas & Ors.

(Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) Writ Appeal Nos.929 of 2001 and 665 of 2002 have been filed by the employer – Andhra Pradesh Handicrafts Development Corporation Li mi te d , and the Government of Andhra Pradesh against an order dated 18th January, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No.22343 of 1995. 2) Writ Petition No.21756 of 2003, which has been ordered to be heard along with Writ Appeal Nos.929 of 2001 and 665 of 2002, had been filed by a workman, who is respondent No.1 in the afore-stated two appeals, challenging termination of his service on the ground that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been followed. 3) As petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.22343 of 1995 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21756 of 2003 is the same, the appeals as well as the petition have been taken up together in pursuance of order dated 6th August, 2009 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.929 of 2001 and 665 of 2002.

4) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been referred to as they have been arrayed in Writ Petition No.22343 of 1995. 5) The petitioners had approached this Court with a grievance that though they had been working as Attenders since long, they were continued on daily wages and their services had not been regularized. They had relied upon G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FWCP.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994, wherein the State of Andhra Pradesh had laid a policy with regard to regularization to the effect that if any daily wager had been working continuously for five years and was continuing in service as on 25th November, 1993, and if there was a vacancy in the cadre, the concerned workman or employee should be regularized in service. 6) After considering the relevant facts, the learned Single Judge had allowed Writ Petition No.22343 of 1995 by holding that the first petitioner had been appointed in 1987 and, therefore, he had a right to be regularised as he has completed five years of service as on 25th November, 1993.

7) So far as petitioner No.2 was concerned, the learned Single Judge held that she had not completed five years of service as on 25th November, 1993; however, looking to the facts of the case, it was directed that upon completion of five years of service, she should also be regularized in service. 8) The afore-stated order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in the above two appeals. 9) Learned Advocate, Smt. A. Savitha, appearing for the appellant Corporation has submitted that, in fact, both the petitioners had not worked for five years as on 25th November, 1993 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have given direction with regard to their regularization. It has been submitted that though in the order of the learned Single Judge, it was observed that petitioner No.1 was appointed somewhere in 1987, the same is not correct because petitioner No.1 was appointed in September, 1992.

10) So as to substantiate the above submission, the learned Advocate has drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.21756 of 2003, wherein it has been stated by petitioner No.1 that he had joined service as an Attender in 1992. Thereafter, the learned Advocate has also drawn our attention to representation dated 15th February, 2001, which is part of record of Writ Appeal No.929 of 2001, wherein petitioner No.1 has stated that he had joined the service of the respondent Corporation as an Attender on 15th September, 1992. Thereafter, the learned Advocate has also drawn our attention to the seniority list of Attenders, which has been filed by the petitioners, wherein it has been stated that petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as a daily wager on 24th September, 1992, whereas petitioner No.2 was appointed initially as a daily wager on 1st October, 1993. 11) Drawing our attention to the afore-stated factual aspects, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by observing that petitioner No.1 was appointed in 1987.

12) So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, there is no dispute that she was appointed for the first time as an Attender on 1st October, 1993 and, therefore, she too had not completed five years continuous service as on 25th November, 1993. 13) The afore-stated factual aspects could not be disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for the original petitioners because the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant Corporation has relied upon the material, which was placed before this Court by the original petitioners themselves. 14) In view of the above fact, it is crystal clear that the direction given by the learned Single Judge with regard to regularization of service of the petitioners is not in conformity with the provisions made in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994. 15) It is pertinent to note that there cannot be regularisation of service unless there is a policy with regard to regularisation of service as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v.

Umadevi and others[1] a n d A. Manjula Bhashini and others v. Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and another[2]. The cut- off date prescribed in the G.O. for determining the eligibility of daily wagers and others cannot be changed by the Court or any other authority. 16) Looking to the afore-stated law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in our opinion, it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to direct regularisation of the petitioners’ services. 17) The learned Advocate appearing for the original petitioners has referred to the case of Ch. Veerababu, Attender, who was initially appointed on 1st June, 1993 and whose service has been regularized with effect from 16th August, 1999 in pursuance of an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.408 of 1998, which had been confirmed in Writ Appeal No.923 of 1999. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate that no discriminatory treatment should be given to the present petitioners and as the service of a person, namely, Ch.

Veerababu, admittedly junior to petitioner No.1, had been regularized, the services of the petitioners should also be regularized. 18) We are not in agreement with the afore-stated submission made on behalf of the petitioners for the reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Umadevi (1 supra) that no order even of the Hon’ble apex Court regularizing the service of any employee against the policy should be treated as a precedent, and in that event, we cannot follow the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which has been confirmed in Writ Appeal No.923 of 1999. 19) In the circumstances, the judgment referred to by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners cannot be followed in the instant case. 20) For the reasons stated hereinabove, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22343 of 1995 is quashed and set aside.

The writ appeals are allowed. 21) So far as Writ Petition No.21756 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioner, who is original petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.22343 of 1995, has questioned the notice of retrenchment dated 16th September, 2003 issued by the respondent Corporation. 22) In our opinion, disputed questions of fact are involved in the afore-stated petition and, therefore, we would not like to entertain the petition. Needless to say that it would be open to the said petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating his grievance. The said petition is rejected for the said reason with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 8th October, 2009 ARS [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] 2009 (9) SCALE 99